As Proctor et al (2003) suggest, the measurement of effective ICT integration is quite challenging. In my setting, we have teachers self-evaluate their technology skills and competence at the beginning and mid-year. This data helps us support the planning of professional development to meet the overall needs of our staff.
Currently, we do not have something to measure the impact of technology use in our organisation on a large scale. However, I am interested to look for ways to measure data and have data-driven dialogues to help move us forward. I’d be interested to hear what other schools are currently doing to help measure this data. A lot of our conversations with teachers are around the purpose of their technology integration: Is it achieving the desired learning outcome? How is it enhancing the learning experience for students (Proctor et al., 2003, p. 69). These informal discussions are great sources of informal data which can help us better understand teachers’ approaches to technology integration. The SAMR model is one way to help teachers understand how they are using technology for integration. Much of the data that I gather for different trials I have been involved with (ie 2-to-1 teacher devices) is anecdotal. This can be challenging to measure growth. However, you can often see the changes in patterns and growth. When our school became a 1-to-1 laptop school, there was a clear decision from the administration that ICT skills for students would not be assessed (ie, typing, etc). However, there would be more of a focus on transdisciplinary skills such as visual literacy, research skills etc. These skills would be a source of teaching points and commented on in reports but not given a numerical value. Because of this, it makes it challenging to gather concrete data on student skills as a way to inform future planning. That being said, I’d be interested in giving our students a survey at the beginning or end of year to see what skills they have and what skills need to still be developed according to students’ self-assessment. Reading Voogt & Pelgrum (2005) really resonated with me. Our school pedagogies are definitely becoming more student-driven and inquiry based with the teachers in the role of facilitators and supports. ICT has become more woven and embedded into the curriculum with less focus on tools and more on what they are trying to achieve. Skills that can be transferred between disciplines are also emphasised with a focus on skills that will be long-lasting. Our inquiry approach to teaching focuses more on collaboration and creation with students exploring their own inquiries based on personal interest and sharing their findings. Because an inquiry model is a focus for our pedagogy, it changes how teaching and integration of technology in the classroom. Our school has invested a lot into professional development to support teachers in developing a transdisciplinary and inquiry classroom. Through planning with the education technology coach, the teachers and coach can work to support students with this model and find the most meaningful ways to integrate technology. References Proctor, R., Watson, G. and Finger, G. (2003). Measuring information and communication technology (ICT) curriculum integration.Computers in the Schools, 20(4): 67–87. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1(2), 157-175.
0 Comments
All teachers are responsible for teaching studies literacies whether they are traditional reading, writing and speaking or the new literacies we encounter. The idea of transliteracy was a new term for me. Transliteracy was defined as “the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks” (Thomas, Joseph, Laccetti, Mson, Mills, Perril & Pullinger, 2007).
With these new literacies comes new skills that need to be unpacked and taught to students in order to succeed in this evolving digital age. 1. Critical Thinking & Questioning As part of digital literacy, students need to think critically in conjunction with their digital tool knowledge (Anyangwe, 2012). Many students feel confident using technology but don’t truly understand the skills they need to be successful. So much of the content online is taken at face value by students and they need to understand who is saying it, why they are saying it and what are the other perspectives (November 2014). Students need to learn how to question the authenticity of content online and using these questions to drive their inquiries further. 2. Creating & Curating With the rise of Web 2.0, it is no longer okay just to consume digital content. Rather, students need to learn how to create content and curate it. Not only that, they must be able to create content that effectively communicates a message. As a consumer of content, students need to take this content and sift through it, organising what is relevant and pertinent information and what content is not useful (Holland, 2013). These skills take time to develop and should be continually built upon. 3. Collaborating and Connecting Working with others doesn’t come naturally to everyone. Building the skills and strategies to be effective with others takes time but the outcome of connecting and collaborating is phenomenal. Through collaboration, many ideas can be combined to create something better than any one individual’s ideas. In education, connecting with others allows you to learn from others and better yourself while being exposed to so much more knowledge and experiences that one could ever imagine. It is important to model appropriate ways to connect with others online in a safe and positive manner and how to make these interactions beneficial to everyone (Holland, 2013). References Anyangwe, E. (2012, May 15). 20 ways of thinking about digital literacy in higher education. The Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/15/digital-literacy-in-universities Holland, B. (2013, November 18). Packing for the digital exploration. Tedx Talks [video]. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJBwe1HPTtw November, A. (2014, May 6). Who Owns the learning? Preparing students for success in the digital age. [video] Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAIxIBeT90 Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S., & Pullinger, K. (2007). Transliteracy: crossing divides. First Monday, 12(12). As technology becomes more readily available to the masses, students have more access to devices at home in addition to the classroom, leading to bring your own device (BYOD) models becoming a more viable option for schools to introduce. Schools should implement a BYOD programme to support student learning in a 21st-century classroom environment and specify the device the school has chosen for consistent learning experiences. When adopting a BYOD model, schools must look at a whole-school approach to learning and ensure policies, educational opportunities and effective infrastructure are in place for the success of the programme.
Adopting a BYOD model provides a school with the opportunity to cultivate a community of responsible learners in a safe educational environment. With the ability to connect online anywhere, anytime, it is normal for some hesitation about online safety (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 15). However, a BYOD programme implemented in conjunction with a digital citizenship programme educates students on how to engage with their devices in a responsible and resilient manner. Schools should tailor their digital citizenship programme to their school’s needs while accessing resources such as Common Sense Media and MediaSmarts. Through this, students gain knowledge about cyberbullying, digital footprints, safety, security, information literacy and referencing (Common Sense Media, 2015). A school-wide acceptable use policy for devices should be created for all students to abide by to support the cultivation of a positive online community (Smith, Worrel-Burrus, Davis, Newman & William, 2014, p. 18). A BYOD programme allows students to gain a sense of responsibility for their devices (Burns-Sardone, N., 2014, p. 192). This responsibility raises the expectations students have of themselves and how they conduct themselves online. Schools may wish to implement a BYOD programme beginning in middle school where students are at an age to handle caring for, transporting and maintaining an expensive device, and are more knowledgeable about appropriate online choices. Prior to this, a school should support technology integration through school-owned devices at the primary level. In addition to a proactive approach with students, schools must critically analyse their infrastructure to ensure it supports their BYOD programme. A benefit to BYOD is that the onus of the cost of the device is on the student and not the school, allowing school funding to be allocated for internet, resources and infrastructure for the programme. With any BYOD programme, the school needs to place high importance on training teachers in the device, online safety, learning platforms and effective technology integration to support students appropriate use, which ensures quality teaching practice throughout the school (Digital Education Advisory Group, 2013, p. 7). In addition, allocated IT support personnel can enhance the adoption and implementation of BYOD. These staff members have an important role in regards to protecting student data, connectivity, upgrades, firewalls and maintenance. A BYOD programme is effective when continually reviewed and necessary modifications are made to keep current with changing technology. A BYOD model changes the class environment through ease of mobility, access to online resources, and assessment tools (Digital Education Advisory Group, p.5). Through the many available online resources, student learning can be differentiation to best meet the needs of the students (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 26). No longer is there a need for one-size fits all learning where students can be extended or supported with a few clicks and inquiries can flourish. Because of this, learning becomes more personalized and student-centred, increasing student engagement and performance (Digital Education Advisory Group, p.7). When students each have their own device, they become active participants in learning in school and at home (Ackerman & Krupp, 2012, p. 35). Through the use of technology, students develop 21st-century skills that are transdisciplinary. BYOD provides students access to the tools and resources to collaborate online through programmes such as Google Apps for Education and Skype. BYOD helps students to easily inquire into their queries, allowing the teacher to transition to the role of a facilitator (Pangos, n.d). Students are able to use technology to create content using multimedia and higher-order thinking while using various resources to stay organised and communicate ideas in a multitude of ways. There will always be challenges such as student safety online, the cost for students, ensuring the infrastructure can handle the adopted programme, professional development with BYOD programmes. However, all of these can be overcome with appropriate planning, guidelines and policies, and frequent review to ensure the all-encompassing programme continues to best support the needs of students. Technology in education is evitably growing with BYOD leading the way (Thomson, 2012 as cited in Chen, Li, Hoang, Lou, 2013, p. 2). By allowing a BYOD programme to support an inquiry-based, constructivist approach to learning, students become responsible digital citizens and schools look closely at the effectiveness of their infrastructure. Students learn valuable 21st-century skills, create, curate content and collaborate globally. Together with a whole-school approach for next-generation learning, a BYOD programme provides students with an educational experience that is highly engaging, challenging and preparing them for their future. References Ackerman, A. S., & Krupp, M. L. (2012). Five components to consider for BYOT/BYOD. International Association for Development of the Information Society, 35-41. Burns-Sardone, N. (2014). Making the case for BYOD instruction in teacher education. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11, 191-201. Chen, H., Li, J., Hoang, T., & Lou, X. (2013). [Working paper]. Security challenges of BYOD: a security education, training and awareness perspective,1-8. Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Digital citizenship scope & sequence. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/scope-and-sequence Digital Education Advisory Group. (2013). Beyond the classroom: a new digital education for young Australians in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/deag_beyond_the_classroom_2013.pdf Pangos, T. (n.d). The Future of Education: BYOD in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/09/the-future-of-education-byod-in-the-classroom Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching [Sixth Edition]. Smith, M. M., Worrell-Burrus, P., Davis, M. K., Newman, M. J., & William, K. (2014). Are we ready for BYOD?. Journal of Effective Schools Project, 21,16-23. Plagiarism and copyright are very common amongst both students and teachers. It is easy to take a picture from online and include it in your presentation without crediting the owner. But it doesn’t make it right. Many teachers struggle to include a teaching component of plagiarism and copyright in their lessons. As teachers, we need to not only be educating our students but educating ourselves on how to credit various forms of media and information to avoid plagiarism and ensure fair use of work.
Plagiarism is defined as taking someone else’s work and claiming it as your own; whereas copyright allows the owner to prevent others from using their material without permission (All Right to Copy, n.d). These ideas are important to understand and be aware of because the owner of the work should be able to control if they give permission for others to use their ideas or work, especially if there are monetary amounts involved in the copyright licenses. A piece of media is copyrighted for 70 years either from the date it was released or the date the owner dies (depending on the medium) (All Right to Copy, n.d). Beyond this time, the work becomes public and anyone can use it without prior permission. Often there are various stipulations with licenses for copyright. Creative Commons clearly outlines the various licenses using symbols or by including text to explain the type of license. Licenses may ask the user to give attribution, allow the content to be remixed, not use for commercial use or not allow for any variations (Creative Commons, 2014). There are so many skills that students need to learn other than just ‘do not plagiarize’ and ‘cite your source’. Students need to understand how to find good sources, how to take notes, how to summarize, how to inject their opinion and perspective into their writing and support it with facts. These skills need to be scaffolded throughout the years of schooling so that students can feel confident using information from various sources to create their own content. Whether you are using videos, text, images or music, indicating when it's’ other’s work ensures that the owner is properly credited and resources are used fairly. Some resources to support teachers and students about copyright and plagiarism include:
Copyright Advisory Group. (n.d). All Right to Copy? Retrieved from: http://ar2c.smartcopying.edu.au/ Creative Commons. (2014). About the licenses. Retrieved from: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Mid-Term Impact Trend: Driving Ed Tech adoption in K-12 education for three to five years
Key Points:
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf Learning management systems all have their pros and cons when it comes to using them in the classroom. The hardest part is finding the best one to fit the needs of the learners and the community. Careful consideration should be given to the benefits and downsides of the learning management system before committing to one as a school. Some of these benefits and downsides are included below.
Advantages:
Contact North. (2012). Is there a future for learning management systems? Retrieved from: http://teachonline.ca/sites/default/files/contactNorth/files/pdf/publications/the_future_of_learning_management_systems_eng.pdf ProProfs. (2013). What is a learning management system? LMS Software [Video Log Post]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAsdtwj00Uo Armfield (2011, p.109) suggest that in many situations technology integration in the classroom is simply used for traditional activities. Yet, we need to be looking at how technology transforms the teaching and learning experience for our students and ourselves as teachers.
Armfield (2011, p.111) also brings to light the idea of a community of practice in which all stakeholders are working towards the same goal. I think this is an important point with regards to technology integration. If the administration does not value the transformative aspects of technology in education, there won’t be budgeting for devices. If teachers don’t value technology in education, they won’t bring it into their classroom. If students don’t value it, they won’t engage with it. It really needs to be a part of the school’s mission and vision about creating a learning environment to meet individual needs using 21st-century tools and strategies to enhance learning. Armfield (2011, p.114) suggests further challenges such as teachers having little experience with technology and fearful of attempting to use it. Many teachers lack knowledge in how technology can support pedagogy and content to benefit their students. This is something that is very common in schools. It takes a lot to build ownership in learning as well as the confidence and courage to take risks in the classroom in front of students. Matzen & Edmunds (2007) suggests that just teaching technology tools in professional development is not good enough and teachers will not likely integrate into the classroom in a transformative way. However, if there is a student-centred approach to instructional strategies, then teachers are more likely to have a shift in their own instructional methods. My role is to lead all of the professional development sessions for education technology. This includes creating surveys to understand staff needs and develop a professional development plan each term to meet these needs, deliver the sessions and reflect back on the success of them and where to go from there. Depending on the time of year and session topics, attendance can vary but I measure success in how teachers then take their learning and apply it in their classrooms or share their learning with others. I love when teachers come back and say they’ve tried something they learnt during a session in their classroom and can share their reflections on it. This also helps them consolidate their own learning and they can then support others who would like to try similar integration strategies in the future. Just like I would facilitate sessions with our students, our professional development sessions are all linked to at least one of the ICT in PYP skills that the International Baccalaureate outlines (2011). This allows teachers to also think about what transferable skills they are developing, similar to how we teach our students. During sessions, I believe it is important that it is hands-on for teachers and that they try things out. I always allow for time to explore so that teachers are constructing their own learning with technology (Matzen & Edmunds,2007). In addition, I model teaching the sessions in a way that I would teach my students to ensure that the learning is student centred (Matzen & Edmunds,2007). This also helps teachers integrate into their own classrooms as they often model what they have been shown during professional development sessions in their own class (Matzen & Edmunds,2007, p. 427). I think that it needs to be a combination of ICT skills and learning new ways of teaching. This cannot just fall on the technology coach though - it needs to be supported by the administration and the curriculum coordinator to guide the way of teaching and learning. In order for teachers to incorporate technology into their lessons, they need to understand how to use the technology. Therefore, whenever we do EdTech PD at our school we always have a dual approach where we look at the technology tool and also look at applications of this in the classroom. From there, hopefully, we’ve sparked some ideas with teachers to help them use the tool to deliver or assess content in the future. We can also then have coaching sessions to support teachers in their planning and draw on some of the tools that would help them best deliver content without spending time ‘teaching’ them during these times. Professional development is ongoing as suggested in Armfield (2011, p. 115). Therefore, we cannot teach teachers everything there is to know about technology integration at once. There needs to be an ongoing commitment to professional development of best practice and technology integration at the school level to build this idea of a community of practice. This will help teachers become more confident using technology in their classes and move beyond just teaching skills towards transformative learning. In addition, as teachers become more confident using technology they should also spend more time reflecting on how they’ve used it and adapt to enhance their teaching. Similarly, as more professional development sessions are run, there needs to be reflection by the technology team to ensure the sessions meet the needs of the staff in a challenging and effective manner. Our school is really good about providing time and resources for teachers to actually learn through technology. Our department has offered close to 30 sessions this year for teachers and are looking to expand that to an online course for new teachers to bring them up to basics as well as use 2 days if staff professional development days and 2 Primary/ Secondary meetings to develop our new digital citizenship curriculum next year. Schools need to keep this commitment of giving teachers time if they want their teachers to use technology effectively (Armfield, 2011, p. 119). Lawless & Pellegrino (2007) suggest that most professional development is voluntary. This is very true in our school this year in terms of technology integration professional development. All 30 sessions are voluntary meaning that only those who are motivated and want to engage with these sessions, rather than those who really could benefit from sessions like this. This is another reason we are moving 4 mandatory staff professional development sessions next year. Effective technology integration is something that all staff need to work towards, hence the whole school approach by administration next year. References Armfield, S. (2011). Technology leadership for school improvement Planning, designing, implementing and evaluating technology, pp. 109-128, 2011. in Technology and Leadership for School Improvement. Papa, R. (Ed) California :Sage International Baccalaureate. (2011).The role of ICT in PYP. UK: IB. Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a Catalyst for Change: The Role of Professional Development. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 39(4), 417-430. Webb and Cox (2004) highlight that teachers need to think critically about their pedagogy and how ICT can be integrated into it. ICT is not an afterthought, rather part of the planning process. As teachers are planning, they need to think about what they hope to achieve. From there, they can think about the pedagogy and strategies that will work best and the tools and their affordances they require to make it a reality. ICT cannot be seen as separate from good practice and planning, rather, seamlessly integrated.
Do all teachers use this complex pedagogical reasoning in my organisation? No. But I think the more technology is seen as just one of many resources rather than something that should be used, we see more and more teachers shifting their ideas of technology integration. I love watching the teachers teach who understand technology integration though. It is as if the technology is just an extension of their normal classroom practice and the students don’t see it as anything else either. It is used when appropriate, and when it’s not appropriate, it isn’t used, allowing both teachers and students to leverage their devices in effective ways. Our school and administration have put a lot of time, money and resources in supporting teachers in getting to this level. While not everyone is there yet, it is the direction we are moving as a school with more and more teachers having a deeper understanding of appropriate and effective technology integration each day. Teachers need to be willing to not be at the centre of the classroom. This is a huge pedagogical shift from ‘traditional teaching’. As mentioned in Somekh (2008) in the various examples, the roles of teachers and students had to change and become co-constructed. Teachers are no longer the sole expert and need to take on the role of being more of a facilitator and supporter. The students have greater access to information through technology which allows the way they learn and what they learn to become more flexible and varied. Through effective technology integration, students can develop transdisciplinary skills rather than just technology skills that can benefit them throughout their life (ie: collaboration, time management, creating, investigating, etc.). In order for this shift to be successful, teachers need to feel supported in a safe environment where it is okay for them to try things and make mistakes. Teachers should receive professional development in a variety of forms to support technology integration into their classroom. This is often best done with a technology coach who can guide them through effective practice. This year, I had to work with all teachers in teachers in the early years to implement our new e-Portfolio programme for students, teachers and parents. In the past, the teachers were responsible for continually upkeep paper portfolios with comments the children said about pieces of work that the teachers wanted the parents to see. There was a huge shift to making it all online and having the students drive the reflections, making it more authentic for the students. In doing this, teachers had to change what they thought portfolios were and how reflections were meant to be recorded and used. This was done by starting small and growing the successes to other classes. Teachers received professional development not only on the specific application and the technical components of doing the e-Portfolio but also professional development on how this could look and work within the classroom. I worked with the teachers and co-taught at times, worked with small groups of students and met one-on-one for additional support. Students were choosing the work they wanted to share by the end of the integration. The students would document their work using photographs or video. They could then create audio or written reflections (depending on their development levels and personal choice) that would be shared online. The teacher allowed for a time within centres throughout the week for students to use the iPads to add to their e-Portfolios. Student motivation and engagement went up as they were in control of the learning and that they had an authentic audience (their parents) that would immediately see their work online. For teachers, the time and effort they needed to maintain the portfolio drastically went down, allowing them to reallocate that time to focus on student learning. References Section 5.3 of: Somekh, B. (2008). Factors Affecting Teachers' Pedagogical Adoption of ICT. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. J. Voogt and G. Knezek, Springer US. 20: 449-460. Webb, M. and M. Cox (2004). "A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13(3): 235-286. http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200183 I have come across TPACK in numerous educational situations as well numerous other courses for this master. TPACK is a framework that supports the integration of technology for effective classroom teaching. It combines technological, pedagogical and content knowledge as a way of thinking to support teachers in ensuring the use of technology is appropriate, thoughtful and effective during the planning stages (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). As a technology coach, my expertise lies in technological/pedagogical knowledge (TPK), where I support teachers in integrating technology for their specific content in a specific content. It is also important that I balance when digital technologies are appropriate and maybe not so appropriate to ensure that teachers move beyond just using a tool.
I think TPACK is a good starting point for teachers who are learning and evaluating how they are integrating technology into their classes but it needs to push their thinking even further. Technology should allow new learning opportunities that would not have been possible before (Mishra & Koeler, 2008). The SAMR model for technology integration to help teachers understand that technology can reach many levels of higher-order thinking and create opportunities for our students to use technology to do things that traditional methods failed to allow for. As technology use moves up the chart, it moves from enhancing the learning experience to truly transforming the experience for students. With the SAMR model, it is understood that the use of technology may vary across all four but it is important for teachers to think about what the real purpose is of the technology. If teachers are only ever using technology for substitution, is this really a good use of technology? Would the students simply be able to not use technology and achieve the same desired learning outcomes? When we move towards modification and redefinition, we are allowing students to develop their critical thinking and creativity skills as they show their learning and understanding in new and complex ways. The more we think about technology integration through TPACK and SAMR the more our students will be able to have meaningful learning experiences.TPACK focuses more about planning for technology integration within a context, whereas SAMR focuses on how technology is changing the learning experience. When technology, pedagogy and content knowledge all exist, it is about understanding the balance with the ever changing technology to ensure that best practice of teaching is always being exemplified in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). For me, the biggest need for teachers who want to integrate technology is a growth mindset. Teachers need to be willing to learn and make mistakes. It is only from here that we can reflect and move forward to better our teaching practice for our students. We need to be open to new ideas, new ways of doing things and new tools to get the job done. We need to be open to letting our students take the lead and be okay with the role of the teacher adapting with it. With a growth mindset, we can be open to new and exciting opportunities, which includes how we integrate ICT. References Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Mishra & Koehler (2008). Keynote address [YouTube]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCPLTz7Z-Q Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) suggested that the majority of teachers in US are not computer users. If teachers aren’t using the tools, then the impact on teaching and learning is not present. In my international school setting, this is not the case at all. All of our teachers are provided a laptop when they begin with our school and receive training on them. There is an expectation that attendance, grading, reports, planning are all on our LMS systems. Thus, technology use is not an option rather a mandate as part of being an employee at the school. In terms of teaching and learning, much of this is also done digitally, however, not mandated in the same way. That being said, with digital resources for classes, teaching teams can share the workload easily by sharing resources with a click of a button. Teachers can view student work using tools such as Teacher Dashboard easily to support them with their work without having to take bags of workbooks home to review.
Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) suggested we need to know more than how often students are turning on computers but rather what students are doing with them while they are on. If it is simple drill and kill practice all of the time, the impact on learning will be minimal as they are not developing skills that are transferable in other scenarios. As I was reading about Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) study, I felt our school had much more access to technology than the schools in the study who had computer labs. With a 1-to-1 programme at our school, each student has access to connectivity and software at all times whether at home or school, thus, increasing the use of computers. Teachers do not have to worry about booking the lab or if the internet connection will be working. This allows for technology to be used at a moment’s notice in class or left to the side of the table when not needed. The 1-to-1 programme allows for technology to just be another tool for students to use if deemed necessary. Somekh (2004) outlines 4 examples of institutional resistance to change in the article. ICT is often seen as a separate subject rather than being integrated into every subject. Teachers often use a one-size fits all, linear model where they start from scratch and teach all the skills rather than differentiating for the needs of the students who are well advanced. Students with access to technology is compounded by the kinds of ICT use. Finally schools restrict access to a number of websites out of fear of unknown and need to be extra cautious in schools. What we have learnt is, that in order for technology to be effective, it needs to become a part of the human activity (p. 177). I think there will always be resistance to new technologies entering into the educational realm. Geoffrey Moore’s book ‘Crossing the Chasm’ (2001) outlines that there is always going to be a bell curve when it comes to technology starting from technology enthusiasts who are willing to try anything as soon as it is available to the skeptics who are the last to give in to technology initiatives if ever. I actually think this is a good thing. It is good to have a variety of perspectives and varying adopting times. It gives the visionaries time to try it out and imagine where it can go which convinces the pragmatists and conservatives to make the transition once there is some proof it will work. When I run trials with new technology tools, this is exactly how i approach it. I access those most willing to try, see what the results are, reflect and analyse if this is the best move forward as a school and use this data to help move the school forward. In my school, technology is not just the responsibility of one teacher. Rather it is the expectation that all teachers teach ICT within their classrooms. As the Technology Coach, I support teachers in doing this but at the end of the day, we all need to weave ICT into our lessons when appropriate. This takes the ownership of ICT off just a single specialist, just like we are all language teachers to an extent. Integration of subjects has become the norm not that anomaly. As a school who uses a transdisciplinary approach to learning through the IB framework, students have all subjects being intertwined. As I am reading the articles by Somekh (2004), I wonder what his findings would be today 12 years later. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001)’s article is now about 15 years after it was written. What are the more recent studies arguing about the impact or lack thereof with technology? Is there really as much discrepancy between home and school? When my students were doing something at home (ie 3D printing), we found a way to bring it into the classroom. I let the students drive their own learning and incorporated the tools they wanted to use. I use Edmodo to mimic Facebook for privacy, age restrictions and safety but still allowing them the social aspect of media. With a student who struggled with creating content and developing his e-Portfolio, I used a mobile device with Blogger to mimic what he was doing with Instagram on his own time. Are these the same tools they are using at home - no. But they are replicating their uses at home in an appropriate and safe way for educational purposes. Because I was making the effort for them, they were also making the effort and I saw improved work quality and quantity. Technology can have a positive impact on learning, community and teaching if used in authentic, meaningful and innovative ways. References Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness. Somekh, B. (2004). Taking the sociological imagination to school: an analysis of the (lack of) impact of information and communication technologies on education systems. Technology, pedagogy and education, 13(2), 163-179. |
Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
|